Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)
our 311 neighborhood meeting to get to this point. dr made extraordinary efforts. the dr requester repeatedly delayed communications and beginning june 24th refused communications entirely. between march 15th, the 311 meeting and june 24 when they cut off communications as is documented in your package, i sent 20 emails requesting meetings and made more than a dozen phone calls and dropped byhir home four times. i explained that we are living in a rental unit and these delays are costing my family approximately $5,000 per month of delay. the dr requester allowed one meeting and the dr request he was not satisfied. we presented plans with further setbacks and a lowering of the remaining development by several feet, the elimination of multiple windows a bathroom and other reductions all to avoid being here for a dr. the dr requester responded by cutting off communication entirely. the dr requester has offered no reason for his inability to appear here today. i rescheduled a trip to korea to be here today. the dr requester has paid attorneys here to represent him, but wishs a deferra
and falls behind the dr requester's home. it breaks the rear line of buildings to the east, and falls behind the buildings creating a more harmonious line. it creates a home on top for my family that is smaller or comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. with regards to the petition, we don't know what the dr requester told the people who signed this. if they have concerns, they should have expressed them in the nine months since we had the 311 meeting. we haven't heard from any of them. we made efforts to reach out. we are a family of six and required by code to maintain two units. it's not a superunit. we believe we have been more than reasonable and we request that the project be approved as submitted. >> thank you. are there any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> dear commissioners and president, yasir and i are husband and wife. we are working parents. we have four children. so i hope this actually works. it's on my iphone. we have four children. our oldest son is right now attending city college and taking courses from there. we have two daughters going to city
that the dr requester is mentioning. with regarding to the solar panels, they weren't there -- they added them after we proposed the project. and didn't take into consideration the project regardless at our own expense, at the request of the dr requester, we did a solar study. the reason why you are not hearing mention of the solar study because it clearly shows that it doesn't shade their panels, regardless of the fact that they used them as leverage against us to say we don't want this. and finally with regards to the stairs looking in, it would be remarkable to be able to look into a slanted bay window with the stairs. these are issues being brought up now. there was six months of silence from the dr requester where we continually asked them to talk to us and they didn't. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. the public hearing is closed. and opening up to commissioners, with comments and questions, commissioner sugaya? >> just on the privacy issue, i don't think people stand around on decks to look into bedroom windows. i'm sorry. i live in a condo, across the street from me, there are
, request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated dr. >> good evening, planning commission, southwest [speaker not understood]. this would allow the alteration of an existing single-family residence by constructing a rear two-story horizontal addition and any partial third story [speaker not understood] middle residence with [speaker not understood] at the front and rear. the property is located at 88 28th street. the adr was filed by an abutting residence [speaker not understood]. it is still consistent with residential guidelines. [speaker not understood]. the adjacent residents to the east is two stories over a raised basin. this property, the subject property is a key lot in lot three residential properties, real property line above the property line above the subject parcel. the shallow rear yards of these abutting properties is somewhat of a typical feature in this neighborhood. the residential design team [speaker not understood] any reduction in light and privacy of the properties to the west and the impacts should not be considered unusual given the blockblock's es
. this concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions of the commission. >> dr requester, you have five minutes. * d-r requestor. >>> i have handouts for the commissioners. it's for this part of the program, i guess you want me to show it to you. all right. my name is janet campbell, i'm an architect with 20 years of experience working on residential properties in san francisco. i was hired by nicole yee who is the d-r requestor in this matter. i have also been asked to represent the concerns of the project sponsor's direct neighbor to the west, diana [speaker not understood]. we would like to say at the outset that we are not asking to reduce the habitable space, just to reconfigure it so it is respectful to everyone. as you can see in this aerial -- can you turn this? as you can see, the aerials in the front page, the garden is seen here in partial shadow from the two-story addition -- two-story building on which the third floor addition is going to be made. and as already pointed out, these key lots, the [speaker not understood] western side have been the lot at [speaker n
of a dr request? >> that is correct. >> okay. i don't have any further questions for now. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> before we hear from the zoning administrator, i just want to see if there is anyone representing the subject property owner, who is also considered a party to this appeal? that person is not in the room. mr. sanchez, go ahead. >> thank you, good afternoon president hwang, members of the board and welcome commissioner honda and look forward to working with you. scott sanchez for the planning department, the subject roproperty is located with an nc s, a neighborhood-commercial shopping sister zoning district. there are very few of these. it's a mall essentially a larger parcel. we did review several letter of determination requests related to the usablability usable of the site for medical cannabis dispensary and found that the property was located within a thousand fee of merced playground that contains a recreation center serving people underage 18 years of age. on march 8th, 2012 mr. girardi requested the possibility of locating a mcd. and we issued a letter o
-called cbo's or the same people, it do not reach in my community where it need to be reached. i requested that i would like to see when funds are distributed to so-called groups that are doing something in my community. including the health department, i talked to dr. garcia and learned of 49 groups dealing with the healthy department, then bay view hunter's point should be the healthier community in the world. but people are sick and dying in that area. i asked that when funds are distributed into my community. i would like somebody from your staff to come before the black human rights council of san francisco, which i founded. to make sure that the funds are going to the right groups to help in my community. and that includes the health department. i talked to dr. garcia about the same thing. our people in the area they don't have just one problem. they may have cancer in the brain and breast cancer and they may have mental ill businessnni one is treating the entire body in bayview hunter's point. i want to thank you for allowing me to speak, to inform you that my community is sick and
afternoon. my name is dr. espinola jackson and i'm here representing the black leadership rights of san francisco. i'd like to say i'm requesting that you reject wiener's project. you know, four of you i know, and we came here before this body many times talking about bayview hunters point and the shipyard. but because of politics, developments, you didn't listen. three of you listened and voted with us. the rest voted against us and we had to file an appeal because of c-e-q-a. and guess what? we won. because the job wasn't done the way it was supposed to be done. even now a supervisor can come before you and support an issue like in my community, and you know what you did? you rezoned because it what slated rezoning 44 53rd street, you without even know when you came about rezoning for a wellness center, you was rezoning 17 other blocks and the politics in that, you know what it is? it's a group -- and i can't think of the name of the hospital -- that wants to come into bayview hunters point on those 17 blocks because you u.c. is in the mission -- what's that missionary there? mission
for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye wu aye,. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted atte
street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> presi
made the dr appeal. and the zoning administrator could have ruled that he'll take that dr appeal he won't schedule the hearing before the commission, he'll acknowledge the appeal that there is a right to a hearing, but he won't schedule it pending your decision on the neighbor's request for you to rule that noza extension should have been givenu$: to my client at all. there was no reason why the zoning administrator couldn't have started that 311 process the day2njyafter the appeal by the neighbor was made. and then, if you had1n%( f decision, as you really did last month, that the neighbor's appeal was in error, and that mr. sanchez had made the right decision we would already have had a 30 day 311 period and a request for a hearing. and after the hearing you had a month ago, there would have been time to have an actual planning commission hearing before the n mt of the extension period, again which was 30 days after your last hearing. once again, the 3111 could have gone out when the neighbor made the appeal, she could have
on the consent calendar tonight. my$éo)=;8ç request for a waiverd >> thank you. item is there a motion and a second for the -- >> motion. >> second. >> any items withdrawnel or corrected by the superintendent? >> superintendant carranza: yes. dr. clawferred. >> good4!sp#fw evening. there are three items to be withdrawn. withdrawn from the consent calendar are the following. item -vñ?ñ 4(b), 1211k1 on pagee and 117. item 4(b), 121113k7>ç>s? on e 123 and,oñ?ñ? 124. both of these resolutions should be administratively approved and wúqr gfb inae agenda. additional withdrawnbrrk"'xv fom 3(h),f]ñ?ñ?1211-13w8:÷ñ?ñ?ñ on . 3(c),kpñ?ñ?1211-13w3 on page 71. theryñ?ñ?ñ cost of 2,200 is inc. the amount is being changed#!ruo reflect the correct amount of >> thank you. anygzñ?ñ? items removed for firt reading by the board? any items severed by thegoÑcjq
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)